Monday, Jul 24, 2017, 5:00 pm

4 Ways the Biotech Industry is Taking Over GMO Regulation from the Inside

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

A statue of the Roman goddess Minerva in Guadalajara, Mexico. In June 2017, the city hosted the 14th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO14)—an increasingly corporate affair. (Image: Twitter)

The British non-profit GMWatch recently revealed that agribusiness has in effect taken over Conabia, the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina. Conabia is the GMO assessment body of Argentina. According to GMWatch, 26 of 34 its members were either agribusiness company employees or had major conflicts of interest.

Packing a regulatory agency with conflicted individuals is one way to ensure speedy GMO approvals and Conabia has certainly delivered that. A much more subtle, but ultimately more powerful, way is to bake approval into the structure of the GMO assessment process itself.

It is easier than you might think.

In June, I attended the latest international conference of GMO regulators, called ISBGMO14, in Guadalajara, Mexico. ISBGMO is run by the International Society for Biosafety Research (ISBR). In 2007, when I first attended this biennial series of conferences, just one presentation in the whole four days was by a company. ISBR had some aspirations towards scientific independence from agribusiness.

In 2011, I went to the ISBGMO held in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Company researchers and executives were frequent speakers, and the conference had become an opportunity for agribusiness to present talking points and regulatory initiatives as if they had the blessing of science.

This year, in Guadalajara, companies were now on the conference organizing committee and conferring conference travel scholarships for those attending. A former conference organizer and ISBR board member told me that the previous ISBGMO (St. Louis in 2015) had been almost entirely paid for by Monsanto.

Spreading the industry message

In Guadalajara, industry speakers were clearly working from a scripted list. That list translates as the key regulatory objectives of the biotech industry.

On the top of that list is “data transportability.” Data transportability is the idea that regulators from different jurisdictions, say India, or the EU, should accept identical biosafety applications. Implementation of data transportability would mean that although each country has unique ecosystems and species, applicants ought not to have to provide studies tailored to each. For example, when it comes to assessing effects on non-target biologic organisms, for example the effects of a GMO crop producing an insecticide, regulators in Australia should accept tests on European ladybird species or earthworms as showing that a GMO cotton can safely be grown there.

The appeal of data transportability for an applicant is clear enough—less cost and less risk of their GMO failing a risk assessment. Not once did I hear mention of an obvious downside to data transportability. The fewer tests to which a novel GMO is subjected the less research there is to detect a significant problem if one exists.

A second standard corporate line was “need to know versus nice to know.” In other words do not ask applicants for more data than they wish to supply. The downsides to this are identical to data transportability. Less data is less testing and less science.

Modernizing risk assessment?

A third major theme of the meeting was “modernization” of regulation. In this scheme the most “advanced” nation was proposed to be Canada.

Canada has adopted what it calls “trait-based GMO regulation.” In trait-based regulation the method of development (i.e. whether the crop was genetically engineered or not) is considered irrelevant. The trait is the sole focus. So if a GMO crop contains an insecticide it is assessed for risk against non-target organisms. If a GMO improves flavor or nutrition then, since there is presumably no risk from flavors or nutrients, then the crop receives what amounts to a free pass.

The Canadian approach sounds harmless, but it has the crucial attribute of handing control of risk assessment to the applicant, because under such a system everything depends on what the applicant chooses to call their trait. Imagine you were asked to review the safety of an aircraft, but the manufacturer wouldn’t tell you if it was propeller-driven or a jet; likewise, if a submarine was diesel or nuclear powered.

The Canadian approach therefore, by just asking what the crop is supposed to do, effectively places outside of regulation most of the standard considerations of risk and hazard. Once upon a time, risk assessment was supposed to be about what a product is not supposed to do. For proposing non-regulation over regulation, Canadian biosafety officials were given more prominent speaking opportunities at ISBGMO14 than any other national regulator.

Tiered risk assessment

A fourth, and equivalently unscientific innovation, that seems widely accepted, is called tiered risk assessment. Imagine a company presents to regulators an insect-resistant GMO crop. An obvious question arises. How is a regulator to know, since the crops produces an insecticide, if it will kill beneficial organisms such as the bees that feed on its flowers?

In tiered risk assessment this question is answered by feeding the purified GMO insecticide to a bee species. If no harm is observed the crop is assumed safe. No further tests are required. If the bees are harmed then a larger scale test, presumptively more realistic, is conducted. If harm is not observed the crop is assumed safe and no further tests are required. If harm is shown then an outdoor or larger-level test will be conducted.

Monsanto presented a lengthy exposition, in a plenary session, of the “soundness” and “logic” of this tiered approach. Tiered risk assessment has been the subject of little scientific debate (though see Lang et al., 2007), but the implications of the tiered approach are profound. It is an asymmetrical system in which passing any test leads to approval whereas failing that test does not result in disapproval.

Consider the comparison with pharmaceuticals. Currently, all pharmaceutical drugs must pass through three phases of clinical trials; first animal tests, then small-scale human trials, then large scale human trials. Failure at any stage is considered terminal. Without wishing to give them any ideas, suppose the FDA were to replace this three-phase system with one under which approval in phase I (animal tests) allowed the developer to go straight to market. There would be, for good reason, an uproar followed by an avalanche of dangerous medications on the market. But that is precisely the logic of tiered GMO testing.

Tiered testing is therefore a system in which failure is an unacceptable answer. The 2008 scientific review paper that first proposed tiered risk assessment made no provision for rejecting the crop in the diagram of the proposed tiered-risk-assessment decision tree. Approvals are guaranteed. Agribusiness knows this perfectly well because many of the principal authors of the paper are from the major seed and biotech companies.

The so-called logical innovations presented at ISBGMO14, such as the above mentioned data transportability, trait-based regulation and tiered risk assessment, along with regulatory modernization, are thus intended as regulatory bypasses. They make it all but impossible for a regulator to turn down a GMO application, or even to collect sufficient information. No wonder the biotech industry likes to refer to risk assessment procedures as approval systems.

Given the lack of objection to these approaches at ISBGMO14, the biotech industry ought now to feel confident that the regulation of biotechnology is largely in their hands, yet still it wants more.

In the coming years, an upsurge is expected in the GMO pipeline as new applications and new approaches become possible. This pipeline is predicted to include GMO algae, animal biotechnology, gene drives and so forth. Many of these opportunities the industry knows will be controversial. The industry also knows that a pacified regulatory environment is a prerequisite for such GMO “innovatations” to get to market.

This is more than a shame. At a time when a comprehensive evaluation of the weaknesses and inherent limitations of scientific risk assessment is urgently needed to cope with these challenges, the chemical and biotech industries are forcing those assessment systems in the opposite direction.

Jonathan R. Latham, PhD, is co-founder and executive director of the Bioscience Resource Project, which is the publisher of Independent Science News (independentsciencenews.org). He has published scientific papers in disciplines as diverse as plant ecology, virology, genetics, and RNA biology.

I always respond at the level of class of those who I'm responding too.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-22 16:24:28

exactly. so I see the results of so called "freedom of choice" firsthand.

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-06 12:35:15

again- why only new gmos should undergo testing? if we find reason to test,we should test everything , no matter what method was used. the trait is important.

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-06 12:30:25

You must lead a sad empty life to need to try and cover your inability to win the argument on facts. People care about the way Roundup is killing their loved ones. Nobody care about your smarmy spelling typo games.

Posted by GOOSE on 2017-08-05 22:14:11

Truth tellers? Only by accidental admission. Read the comment thread above. Truth teller and keeper of glyphosate facts Cletus Debunkerman makes gibberish out of the proper name for glyphosate: "- n-phoshonometnehyl glycine." razorjack accuses Peter Olins of spelling it that way. razorjack later admits after I showed that Olins spelled it correctly: "I made the typo." Looks like razorjack and Debunkerman are one and the same.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-05 20:26:44

Looks like he has already told you that he wants to see " I'm looking for Independent chronic toxicity studies, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides."

Why do you continue to badger when Goldfinger answered your question in a way that needed no clarification for smart people.

Posted by GOOSE on 2017-08-05 17:52:16

I'm trying to get a straight answer out of finger, will he accept animal feeding studies to show gmo safety to humans or not?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-05 17:43:36

So you don't have the science, but it is Goldfinger who is moving the goalpost. You are a hypocritical harassing troll.

Posted by GOOSE on 2017-08-05 17:31:19

You once wrote "Humans are not livestock that are all slaughtered at a young age" you also wrote "none of them have anything to do with the effects on humans of long term GMO consumption" when talking about using animal feeding studies to determine GMO safety to humans. Even if the studies you want are conducted you won't be satisfied, you will just keep moving the goal posts. This is especially obvious since you have already been shown multi-generational GMO feeding studies among a mountain of other evidence showing GMO's are no less safe than conventional food.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-05 17:17:40

Typical response from an industry troll who is here to obfuscate issues and troll truth tellers. Your keepers will be proud.

Posted by GOOSE on 2017-08-05 17:10:44

Poorly written question. Both answers provided are wrong. The answer is clearly 'c': razorjack by his own admission, "I made the typo."

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-05 16:45:26

Which one of you is the liar. Is it you or Olins?

Posted by GOOSE on 2017-08-05 16:01:46

You made the typo! Yet knowing this, you threw shade at Peter Olins as if he made the mistake: "Verna, that is how Peter Olins spelled it. Is Peter a chemisty (sic) illiterate?" Even from you, my jaw dropped at this new low.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-05 15:55:30

I made the typo. You tried to make a big deal out of it while at the same time pumping out more industry PR bot drool to keep your hand in the conversation.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-08-05 13:48:56

I did discuss the issues. Like the inconvenient fact that your facts on glyphosate may not have a basis in biochemistry and you posted misinformation about the proper name of glyphosate. Yet you still refuse to give a mechanism for misincorporation of glyphosate instead of glycine in proteins that I asked for several times in this thread. As for the typos, do you mean this one? "Sorry, Chris, but glyphosate IS an amino acid (n-phosphonomethyl glycine)." If Peter Olins did make a typo, he corrected it. Therein lies the difference. Peter Olins corrects his mistakes. He also corrected misinformation from another commenter that you would consider to be on the same side as him. You double down on mistakes under the impression that smart people don't admit mistakes. In reality smart people learn from their mistakes.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-05 12:25:16

So now we are going to discuss the spelling typos instead of the issues.

I did a Google search of both that incoherent spelling and Peter Olins. Nothing except a comment where he gave the correct spelling of the compound. If you did find a comment from him with that spelling, it was not chemistry illiteracy. It was likely an autocorrect fail. If you did copy and paste that, you were entirely oblivious to the garbling of the chemical name. Yet you keep saying you know more than anyone about the facts about glyphosate. Except, of course, its real name.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-05 03:42:09

An idiot who can type once wrote "Humans are not livestock that are all slaughtered at a young age" the very same idiot also wrote "none of them have anything to do with the effects on humans of long term GMO consumption" when talking about using animal feeding studies to determine GMO safety to humans. Even if the studies you want are conducted you won't be satisfied, you will just keep moving the goal posts. This is especially obvious since you have already been shown multi-generational GMO feeding studies among a mountain of other evidence showing GMO's are no less safe than conventional food.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-05 01:44:04

Verna, that is how Peter Olins spelled it. Is Peter a chemisty illiterate?

How does the spelling of the substance have anything to do with the facts Cletus posted?

Posted by razorjack on 2017-08-04 23:16:44

What in the name of all that is IUPAC is "- n-phoshonometnehyl glycine"? It looks like an attempt by a chemistry illiterate to write N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine. And then you end up telling me that I am ignorant of the facts related to glyphosate?

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-04 21:33:10

Thanks for proving that he was right.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-08-04 18:27:36

Thanks for pointing that out. I rewrote that sentence and didn't edit out a few words. Fixed it.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-04 18:22:55

Send in the clones...don't bother, they're here.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-04 18:19:43

What? Can you please explain in English,what you said..."Sorry. I forgot Stephanie Seneff has stepped in and is tracking that around that woo around the pseudoscience world, too".

Posted by patzagame on 2017-08-04 17:55:54

That's ridiculous...You don't even live in the U.S.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-08-04 17:32:09

Yes he is. Why do you have so many problems with people who post the truth?

His response to you was what your drivel merited. Look in the mirror if you want to see the problem.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-08-04 16:17:44

As always, keeping it classy and evidence based.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-04 15:36:04

Bla, bla, bla,..... Nothing new same old drool.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-04 14:50:18

Better send in the rest of the clowns, sorry, clones. You and SUNNY can't seem to bring any evidence to bear except for your undying and uncritical devotion to Samsel and Seneff. I described the problems with bond formation to get glyphosate incorporated into a protein at all. Care to let us in on what supporting evidence of any possible catalysis mechanism that would account for a peptide bond forming over, under or around that great big charged phosphate group?

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-04 14:44:04

Speak for yourself.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-08-04 14:36:09

Sorry, Verna. I pay attention to respected scientists like Seneff and Samsel like smart people do and ignore the ignorant attempts to spin away the scientific facts by industry PR bot working the Monsanto agenda.

Show me the data. Show me some real science. Until then I'll pay attention to the real scientists and ignore the drivel and spin from industry operatives.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-04 14:31:38

Sorry. I forgot Stephanie Seneff has stepped in and is tracking that around that woo around the pseudoscience world, too. Ironically, after a breathless communication with Anthony Samsel, the Weston Price people published a figure showing that if a glyphosate misincorporated into a protein, it could block an active site with the large and charged phosphate group. I guess it never occurred to them that the same charge and steric problems they noted for the phosphate group would also apply to completely blocking the catalysis of the peptide bond to incorporate glyphosate in the first place. And it is not a fact about glyphosate. It is a fantasy of a limited number of people with little or no concept of protein structure and function.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-04 14:25:40

Saying the same debunked thing over and over is trolling.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-04 13:37:06

Thanks again for reminding us you cannot support your claim.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-08-04 13:35:07

It is not just Samsel. Other scientists have also found the same thing. After all, glyphosate is an amino acid - n-phoshonometnehyl glycine. It is instructive that you and the other industry PR bots all seem to have trouble with the facts related to glyphosate.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-04 13:34:53

So you say. Everyone knows you are an industry PR bot who needs to post to make that pay per post pay even if it makes you look pathetic and weak like you do here.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-04 13:28:17

Thanks for proving once more that you don't know what you are talking about.

"It mimics glycine in the body." How? Only Anthony Samsel seems to think you can get the glycine t-RNA to recognize something with an unwieldy and charged phosphonomethyl group on it and mistake it for glycine, let alone fit it into what is essentially the active site of the r-RNA. Look up the currently accepted mechanism for formation of the peptide bond to see how absurd that notion is. Scientists who have done studies on protein structure have incorporated modified amino acids into proteins, but they know enough to keep the modification small and well away from the site of peptide bond formation. And they still have to create their own modified t-RNAs to get incorporation to occur in vitro. Glyphosate has been observed through labelling studies to incorporate into proteins in some species, but only after the phosphonomethyl group is cleaved off. The remaining glycine, which is identical to all other glycines, is used as glycine, and the phosphate group used as a source of phosphate.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-04 12:33:24

Only someone who is ignorant of the issues would make that kind of bogus trollish claim. Smart people see the substance. Industry PR bots never will.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-04 12:23:48

Smart people don't need explanations. They don't troll when told to buzz off. We can see that you are not smart enough to know when to quit trolling.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-04 12:22:21

Which means you have no substance to your claim -- and you're foolish enough to remind us of that with your addiction to posting.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-08-04 12:14:28

Yes, you have. And there's no doubt that you don't try to explain because you can't.

Posted by Jason on 2017-08-04 11:54:34

No surprise. I have told you many times I don't try and explain anything to industry PR bots with a disinformation agenda.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-04 11:44:42

Look it up yourself. The rest of your scripted industry PR drool is just that and not worth responding too.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-08-04 11:43:15

No one has asked to see human studies. I'm looking for Independent chronic toxicity studies, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-04 10:40:36

I don't care if you read it or not, but I explained the issues I had with what StopGMO was saying. So people who read this will know you are the pathetic troll.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-04 00:26:27

Human feeding studies are not allowed, you know this.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-04 00:06:48

Humans are not livestock that are all slaughtered at a young age. They are not birds.

Show me ONE study that shows long term consumption of GMOs is safe for humans. I won't accept cherry picked reviews. Show me some real science.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-04 00:02:07

But they do show that long term consumption is no more harmful than conventional feed to animals.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-03 23:57:14

Your BS won't change the facts that everyone can see with their own eyes. Give it up. You look pathetic.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 23:56:02

None of your bogus junk pseudo-science studies prove that long term consumption of GMOs is safe for humans. I won't be explaining anything to industry shills.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 23:54:50

Wrong.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-03 23:53:02

So are you saying that you don't believe animal feeding studies can be used to determine safety to humans? If so why?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-03 23:52:22

PW is right. You are trolling.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 23:50:50

It doesn't mater because none of them have anything to do with the effects on humans of long term GMO consumption. You can post a million studies, but if none of them prove your point you are wasting all of our time and demonstrating your ignorance at the same time.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 23:49:45

Yes I gave a response look harder.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-03 23:45:25

The review looked at 24 different GMO feeding studies, 12 of them multi-generational from 2 - 5 generations 12 of them long term 90 days - 2 years and found no harm caused by GMOs. If GMOs were dangerous why was no harm found?

Furthermore the authors are either from universities or research institutions, this is NOT an industry review.

So unless you can point out an issue you have with the review or point out a study that you believe should have been included in the review you have nothing.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-08-03 23:41:57

Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 18:54:03

Your psychological projection is fascinating. At least you recognize your issues even as you attribute them to others.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-08-03 18:42:59

You are delusional and misinformed about everything it seems. You're clueless on GMOs. Clueless on pesticides. Then you show us you believe in fairy tales and conspiracy theory nonsense. Sheeesh! .... You're a mess.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 18:26:39

With ~30,000 posts among your accounts you seem obsessed with the last word.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-08-03 18:20:33

Obviously, you yearn to have the last word, not matter how stupid and desperate it makes you look.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 17:28:06

You certainly are doing everything you can to move it along. Of course, it is an obsession with Cletus / Goldfinger / GOOSE / Wally / Sunny / E Sandwich / Peaceful Warrior / Razorjack (I may have missed a few) to get in the last word.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-08-03 17:25:22

You must be desperate to try and keep this conversation going. Sad and pathetic. Get a life!

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 17:21:08

Yawn...

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-08-03 17:19:48

Yes, you are.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 17:19:04

Boring...

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-08-03 17:18:18

Incoherence won't bail you out.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 17:09:55

And you fail trying to make hay from nothing.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-08-03 17:06:44

Apparently you chose no to answer the question. Typical from industry shills.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 16:42:13

You studies are all industry reviews of cherry picked studies that support the industry agenda and they ignore any science that conflicts with the agenda. They pure rubbish crap.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-08-03 16:40:43

I don't think Sunny ever that these GMOs should be banned. It looks to me like he said that all GMOs should undergo safety testing as each new organism presents unique possibilities for adverse reactions with long term human consumption.

Currently GMOs are not tested for long term safety in humans. Serious medical issues like Non Hodgkin's lymphoma, bile duct cancer, Kidney and renal pelvic cancer, urinary bladder cancer, thyroid cancer, not only that but also hypertension, stroke, obesity, diabetes, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal infection, autism, alzheimer's , and parkinson's. All of these have increased dramatically since cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs were introduced with out any long term safety testing and purposely hidden from us in the food supply.

Millions of people are finding that the unexplained issues get much better or resolve completely when GMOs are removed from the diet and a clean healthy organic food diet replaces the chemical laden GMO diet.

I think glyphosate should be banned from the planet.

Posted by Peaceful Warrior on 2017-08-03 16:09:47

OK. You have no issues. You are trolling.

Posted by Peaceful Warrior on 2017-08-03 10:51:05

There is no credible evidence that long term consumption of Roundup laden GMOs is safe for humans. You can keep pumping out the limited feeding studies on animals, but they don't tell us anything about human safety.

Posted by Peaceful Warrior on 2017-08-03 10:50:12

Again I am not against trait related scrutiny. So if someone shows that roundup is dangerous, then glyphosate applications should be regulated which might in turn put some current GM crops out of market. But why should we block fungus resistant potatoes or vitamin enriched banana because someone dislikes glyphosate is beyond my understanding. At the same time why should glyphosate application on non GM crops get a free pass? Yes I have posted study that long term consumption of GM crops that included glyphosate tolerant crops with glyphosate residues is safe. Also keep in mind that even if glyphosate residues are present in corn kernels and soybeans as consumed by livestock, its concentration in oil, sugar, starch, corn syrup as consumed by humans is orders of magnitude lower.

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-03 08:25:58

No one accused you of being drunk. You went there yourself. One has to wonder why.

Posted by Jason on 2017-08-03 05:25:49

You are an idiot if you think anyone gets paid to support gmos on disqus.

Over 96% of the GMO crops being grown today were genetically engineered to use Roundup in their cultivation. Roundup must be taken up into the plant to work and it can not be washed off. It is impossible to have a fact based conversation about GMOs without acknowledging the fact that most food from GMO crops carries an added free dose of cancer causing Roundup in every bite.

GMOs are not safe I have posted science that shows serious issues of human health by those consuming Roundup laden GMOs long term.

You have not posted ONE study that shows long term consumption of GMOs is safe for humans. We need to see science, not empty claims by industry PR assets with an agenda.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-02 12:39:46

The truth never changes, Jason, but that doesn't stop you from lying.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-02 12:33:22

the conversation here is about gm crops and not roundup. Yes I have shown you relevant article that shows that GM crops are as safe and as nutritious as any other crops. Its you who is moving goalposts and posting garbage, that even does not support your claims if you read it carefully. Nothing new. By the way there is no way and no point how to test neglibible effects of anything that occurs in 1 in million consumers over the period of several decades. We only can test chemicals that have some measurable effect in large percentage of animals during their lifetime.

You can post those meaningless studies all day, you can not show me one study that shows long term consumption of Round, up laden GMOs is safe for human consumption.

I have posted relevant science. You have nothing as usual.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-02 11:44:35

Yup, I guess we have discussed the Swanson paper a few times already. That is that famous paper that claims that the increase of some cancers and other diseases convinced or pushed farmers to use more GMO seeds and glyphosate (which by the way is completely different issue from plant breeding). There are also other papers on the issue like this one https://www(dot)animalsciencepublications(dot)org/publications/jas/articles/92/10/4255 . It is on livestock which you might not consider relevant for humans because its convenient for you, but for most people it will be very relevant because 1) animals really consume the GMO crops directly, unlike humans that consume them in highly processed forms that is frequently materially identical and indistinguishable from non-GMO. See eg . non-gmo project website that says "...Testing finished product is not a reliably accurate measure of GMO presence. Therefore, the Non-GMO Project Standard requires testing of individual ingredients or precursors, not finished products...." https://www(dot)nongmoproject(dot)org/product-verification/verification-faqs/ . 2) farm animals live in highly controlled conditions where food composition and intake, weight gain, health conditions are monitored regularly on each and every animal. This is impossible to do with human population where you have a) gazillion of confounding variables and b) people are notoriously dishonest about their food choices. As can be frequently seen on the discrepancy between what people say they consumed and analysis of their garbage such as here http://libjournals(dot)mtsu(dot)edu/index(dot)php/scientia/article/download/620/566/

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-02 11:40:31

Pat is a truth teller. It is you who is the big AG shill and troll. Your posting history is all the proof any smart person needs to see the truth in this situation.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-02 10:51:09

No they are not. You can not show me one study that shows long term consumption of Roundup laden GMOs is safe for human consumption.

Yet there is this study.

Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United States of America http://www(dot)organic-systems(dot)org/journal/92/JOS_Volume-9_Number-2_Nov_2014-Swanson-et-al(dot)pdf

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-02 10:32:31

sorry, I did not want to hurt your feelings. If I twisted your words then please explain me what did you meant by "huge overhaul to include nuking and chemical mutagenesis also".

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-02 07:23:31

It's simple etiquette when adressing someone in written form. No need to get upset just because he exposed you as a big-Ag shill.

I posted the definition of safe. I'm not interested in playing a semantics game with you. We all see who you represent here.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-01 19:58:53

the conversation was about food. Is GMO food as safe as noGMO food? Safer ? Safest? How to tell? That kind of definition I had in mind

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-01 19:20:58

safe adj. saf·er, saf·est1.a. Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt: He returned from the voyage safe and sound.b. Not exposed to the threat of danger or harm: The children were safe at home all through the storm.c. Usable in specified conditions without being damaged. Often used in combination: a microwave safe container.2. Free from risk; not liable to be lost; sure: a safe bet.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-01 19:16:17

how you define "safe for humans"?

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-01 18:59:58

I understand that you are spouting, perfectly, the industry PR asset line.

Show us some actual science that shows long term consumption of GMOs is safe for humans.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-01 18:33:15

I have just explained you why there is of glyphosate tolerant crops and so few other traits and crops. And the corporate greed of bigag is not the reason or at least not the major reason.From your reply I am not sure you understood my point, but I am sure other intelligent readers will:)

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-01 17:51:21

Are you ashamed of being a PR asset for the biotech chemical industry? The history of GMOs show that they were designed to sell more Roundup/gyphosate.

We have all seen the health issues that that has caused, but all you have to offer is the vaporware of the hustler.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-01 17:28:24

Keep posting these pre-scripted responses. That, along with your habbit of accusing your opponents as shills and pro-industry bots really gives weight to your argument:) The proclaimed goal of GM safety testing is to lower the risk of unintentional consequences of the breeding process such as increased level of naturally occuring toxins or allergens. However any breeding method can change these levels. I would be very surprised if you will be able to find say five plant varieties in current commercial seed catalogue that are more than 100 years old. Not speaking about "thousands of years of evolution" . And thank you for your side -step to glyphosate. The discussion here is about plant breeding. So if I understand right your point, because some GM crops are glyphosate tolerant, all GM plants should be scrutinised and possibly tested on glyphosate toxicity? At the same time glyphosate is used on many non-gm crops and they should get a free pass? Is there a logic? Even if glyphosate is a problematic herbicide, it should not be an argument for specific regulation of one breeding method. Most GM crop varieties that are stuck in regulatory limbo have nothing to do with glyphosate. But the glyphosate trait has a great commercial potential, so it usually makes sense to invest few millions ant push it through. Better tasting tomatoes, more nutritious banana, hypoallergenic soybean - not so much.

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-01 17:23:45

The conventional food we eat has been tested by evolutionary forces for thousands of years and have been consumed for millenniums with out harm to humans.

GMOs are cobbled together in a lab from the genes of unrelated organisms and they have not been through evolutionary pressure and they are released to the environment with out any safety testing.

Over 96% of GMOs grown today are genetically engineered to use Roundup/glyphosate in their cultivation. This pesticide must be taken into the plant in order to work and it can not be washed off.

A recent peer reviewed study published on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease at concentrations over 430,000 times lower than what is allowed in the food supply.

Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

I can see why you and your industry does not want to see safety testing done.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-01 16:48:57

No, that is what elementary logic dictates if your opinion is not formed by ideology and well paid activists such as FOE, OCA, Greenpeace and alike. Why should only some novel varieties be havily scrutinised before approval and even after being placed on the market? Does it serve well the public that most novel varieties do not go through any safety testing? It has been shown multiple times that some novel or old varieties can contain dangerous levels of toxins, antinutrients and allergens, but none of these activist organisations calls for better safety testing for all crops and breeding methods. Just some relatively recent methods are targeted, with obvious goal to demonise biotech and romanticise organic. That is where you should look for "shills". If public safety is the issue, all new varieties and traits should be scrutinised to some extent, for example the way how they do it in Canada. good night

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-01 16:17:41

All the other BigAg shills will likely agree with you about the safety studies and the suppression of food buyers need to transparent labeling that supports informed consent. That is what industry shills are paid to say.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-01 16:02:01

There were some cases in New Zealand a few years back traced to organic zucchini. Apparently inbreeding of an old variety was responsible. Just goes to show that there is a certain level of risk that is low but unavoidable unless we want to price our food out of the reach of all but the very rich because of the cost of testing every bite.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-01 15:39:07

I believe that both labeling and testing do not serve to improved public safety but only as obstructions and barriers that are costly, useless and incoherent . I believe that mandatory labeling limits food choices and damages the poorest customers while providing no material benefit except "feel good" effect for those who can afford it. For those well off parts of the society the "No GMO" labels work just fine. And I know quite well what I am talking about. Just two weeks ago I could not complete grocery shopping for me and my kids because my account was empty in the middle of the month. Fortunately I had something on my pension account that I could use as emergency till next payday.

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-01 15:16:46

I dont know about zucchini breeders, but potato breeders normally check solanine content of novel varieties. Nobody wants to risk the realease of poisonous variety. Yet still the solanine content can go exceptionally high due to stress and other environmental factors even in verieties that are normally benign. The same for cucurbitacin as evidenced by recent (2015) case of deadly intoxication by home grown zucchini.

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-01 15:06:32

Since we know most of the naturally occurring pesticides in plants, even checking for unforeseen events like overproduction of solanine in new potato varieties would be an improvement on current safety standards. It could even prove to be a selling point for seeds. "Our new zucchini are guaranteed not to poison your customers!"

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-08-01 14:40:15

Nonsense.

Pat is a truth teller. You are a BigAg shill. Nobody is putting plant breeders out of business to insist that these new unique organisms undergo safety testing before the are released and purposely hidden in the North American food supply.

You don't want testing and you are against labeling that gives food buyers the information they need to make an informed choice. You live in a country that requires labels and yet you think that North Americans should do without.

Posted by SUNNY on 2017-08-01 14:28:11

Scientific trials, my a$$. You wouldn't know real science if it bit you. You spread antiscience propaganda on behalf of the agrochemical / biotech industry (and that's probably ALL you do.) If you think people watching you post your corporate propaganda for the past several years are stupid enough to believe a word you spew, then you're not nearly as smart as you (or your corporate masters) think you are.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-08-01 13:42:02

Where do transgenes come from if not from nature? If I take a sweet pepper gene and put it in banana, why should that be considered some sort of alien life form?

Posted by Alokin on 2017-08-01 11:53:42

Dear Patzgame. Here you sound like BigAg shill. You are aksing for more safety studies even on conventionally bred crops, effectively putting all independent breeders out of bussiness. Only few big companies can do that sort of testing and only in few crops. Safety testing of drugs is about a USD 1 bn. a pop. Here we are talking about safety testing of something without any biological activity. Simple compositional analysis would be sufficient. That is several orders (five or six) of magnitude cheaper!!

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-08-01 03:37:51

Wow Rob you are so clever , said someone to you in your wildest dreams.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-31 20:21:29

Feeding me? I conduct scientific trials dumbass

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-31 20:19:33

Obviously the science the biotech industry is feeding to you. Not even close to actual science.

Posted by Anne Temple on 2017-07-31 17:24:49

Yes, the science of bullshitting -- we know that already...

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-31 17:21:11

Razorjack speaks the the truth. Why do always seem to have so much trouble with those who tell the truth?

Posted by GOOSE on 2017-07-30 20:04:33

Sorry, pal, your trolling. I'll flag the troll.

Posted by GOOSE on 2017-07-30 15:35:46

Show me the "truth" you claim about the WHO instead of changing sock puppets.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-30 15:10:44

Come on Brion_1, Multiple people have told the truth and you keep trying to spin it away. Do your own homework. Smart people know better than to verify anything for a trolling industry astroturfer with a disinformation agenda.

Posted by GOOSE on 2017-07-30 14:49:25

This is an easily verifiable truth.

Which you utterly fail to do, suggesting that it is your lie.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-30 14:25:59

Nope. As Cletus said,

"That is a report by an AG dominated committee of the WHO. The WHO has not accepted that report as their official position which is the same as the IARC which is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. Your claim is a lie."

Maybe if you would read what people have written before you respond you wouldn't need to keep trolling to keep your hand in here.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-07-30 13:52:02

You claim the WHO report I posted is a lie. Where is the clarification from the WHO?

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-30 13:46:15

Look, Brion. You have been given the facts. Cletus is a truth teller. You are an industry PR asset who is here to obfuscate the facts and to cloud readers minds and spread confusion and false information to spin the narrative for the benefit of the industry and support the Monsanto 4.6 billion dollar glyphosate business.

You can keep trolling me all day with your never ending harassing nonsensical arguments, but you can not change the actual facts which are exactly as Cletus posted here.

Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-07-30 10:31:05

Can't argue about that. Personally feel the whole approval system needs a huge overhaul to include nuking and chemical mutagenesis also. The criteria for approval of PNTs is far too lack. Food safety studies are not thorough enough,and the industry lobbies the regulators for less. After market follow up is nonexistent. Ever wonder why there is such opposition to novel GE food crops? I'll keep quibbling as long as it takes...can't accept herbicide residues in my food.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-30 07:54:40

Cletus has posted the facts. If you don't believe it you can look them up for yourself.

No facts at all. Where is the update on the WHO report?

EPA is the same agency that allowed Monsanto to hide the Lankas & Hogan study as a trade secret just before the approved glyphosate over the objections of their own toxicologists.

And you refuse to answer who has made the claim on behalf of Monsanto's study and what is the basis of the claim.

The study about glyphosate causing fatty liver disease was posted on the Nature website. Nature is the most prestigious scientific journal on the plant, and they don't publish bad science.Scientific Reports is Open Access. Junk gets through.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-29 23:40:11

Cletus has posted the facts. If you don't believe it you can look them up for yourself.

EPA is the same agency that allowed Monsanto to hide the Lankas & Hogan study as a trade secret just before the approved glyphosate over the objections of their own toxicologists.

The study about glyphosate causing fatty liver disease was posted on the Nature website. Nature is the most prestigious scientific journal on the plant, and they don't publish bad science.

It is pretty obvious to most people that you are an industry PR asset who is trying to spin the truth away so as to support the industry agenda.

Posted by razorjack on 2017-07-29 23:13:43

The WHO has not accepted that report as their official position which is the same as the IARC which is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

Show us a subsequent clarification from the WHO.

The study data shows that glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA. It doesn't matter if they made a claim or not. It is about the science.

Long on rhetoric and short on substantiation. The EPA review states otherwise. Monsanto has not made the claim. So who is making a claim of causality and what basis do they have?

A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease a concentrations over 430,000 times lower that the contamination allowed in the food supply.

This is just another analysis of the data from the discredited Seralini report.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-29 23:00:17

Yah... I've been waiting a long time for you to explain anything and still nothing. Surprise.

Posted by Jason on 2017-07-29 21:49:54

So at least you have done more due diligence than the author did when he wrote the article. As for not coming across as a nitpicker, the fact remains that you are quibbling about studies that are in line with requirements of the internationally accepted Codex Alimentarius upon which CFIA based their criteria. In fact, there have been approvals for novel traits like herbicide tolerance to imidazolinone herbicides in sunflower, which were derived from mutagenesis, for which there were no submitted feeding studies. Still a higher level of safety testing for a GE plant compared to novel traits resulting from nuking or chemical mutagenesis of the DNA.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-07-29 19:32:24

You know,Verna ...I don't want to come across as a nit picker,but I read thru those conditions for approval and..."A broiler chicken feeding study was submitted", it makes me wonder,what the conditions were for that feeding study to gain approval.Let us disregard the fact that broiler chickens are not mammalian,,,How long was the feeding study? 30 days,like most feeding toxicology studies? Have you ever owned chickens? They can eat almost anything,like crows can and suffer no ill effects.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-29 18:02:26

Thanks for pointing that out. That means Latham also did not check to see that the PNT (plants with novel traits) rules were already in effect since 2004. The list I gave above is for a current submission that is following the PNT approval process. PNTs include, but are not limited to genetically engineered crops. If you go to the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) and search for plants with novel traits, you should find a list of approvals going back to 2004, and several of those archived are for crop plants that have novel traits created by conventional breeding or mutagenesis.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-07-29 14:39:33

As I've Bennett saying....

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-29 13:26:30

You will wait a long time. I have no intention of explaining anything to disingenuous agenda industry PR bots. Smart posters see the truth. You never will.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-29 13:18:03

You seem to have poor social skills.

Buzz OFF!

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-29 13:16:00

Feel free to explain to us all how you calling this a PR stunt in any way addresses your apparent double standard.

I eagerly await.

Posted by Jason on 2017-07-29 13:11:42

You cannot control yourself nor your bizarre fantasies.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-29 13:08:19

Actually he said that was a proposal,not what actually occurs as of now.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-29 12:48:40

You need to stop responding to me as I have told you I am not into low tone industry PR operatives. Why do you insist on forcing yourself on me?

Apparently you can't resist responding even though you know you won't make the cut.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-29 12:25:43

You are the one who is spinning.

The laureate letter was a PR stunt that had nothing to do with science or data. The report Tomas is citing was a limited study that did not take all the issues into account about human health and safety. It's apples and oranges, you know it already, but hey, "Let Nothing Go".

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-29 12:21:02

Nice attempt at spin, but I'm afraid you're busted. It makes no difference if you call it a PR stunt or not. You can not both claim these scientists are not qualified because it's not their specialty while at the same time claiming that a review can't be trusted unless it's done by scientists who are outside of that specialty. What you are creating is an impossible situation.

Posted by Jason on 2017-07-29 12:04:56

You have some weird fantasies that you fell the need to share.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-29 12:03:16

False equivalency argument. The laureate letter was a PR stunt that had nothing to do with science or data. The report Tomas is citing was a limited study that did not take all the issues into account about human health and safety. It's apples and oranges, you know it already, but hey, "Let Nothing Go".

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-29 11:22:07

Nope. That is a report by an AG dominated committee of the WHO. The WHO has not accepted that report as their official position which is the same as the IARC which is that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. Your claim is a lie.

A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease a concentrations over 430,000 times lower that the contamination allowed in the food supply.https://www(dot)nature(dotcom/articles/srep39328

The study data shows that glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA. It doesn't matter if they made a claim or not. It is about the science.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-29 11:17:26

Everyone can see the way you keep responding to me. It is an un-natural attraction when you continue to force yourself on me.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-29 11:08:06

Oh...I see. People who are experts in the field aren't qualified to give an opinion on that field because they are experts in that field.

Sounds legit.

Posted by Jason on 2017-07-29 06:54:06

Unless their report is balanced with views from other specialties...

But wait... In the case of the Nobel prize winners who've supported GM tech, you've said that their opinions aren't valid because they are from other specialties. So which is it?

It really seems like you need to get your arguments straight.

Posted by Jason on 2017-07-29 06:50:50

Both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization have declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

False on the WHO:

JOINT FAO/WHO MEETING ON PESTICIDE RESIDUESGeneva, 9–13 May 2016SUMMARY REPORTIssued 16 May 2016Meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet

A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease a concentrations over 430,000 times lower that the contamination allowed in the food supply.

Sigh, this is called "projection," and you are getting some sort of perverse high...

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-29 00:34:35

LOL, you really don't like when your mistakes are pointed out do you? You know everyone makes mistakes right?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-29 00:20:00

More babbling hey, still no issues with the studies. Flag away, you only make yourself look stupid.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-29 00:09:32

Your eyes deceive you. Yes, I have issues with the studies because they are industry designed junk pseudo-science and not based on real honest science .

Please don't continue to try and twist my words. If you continue I'll be flagging your posts as harassment.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 23:54:07

Everyone can see your unhealthy attraction because of the way you keep dogging my posts and using clueless uneducated industry PR scripted rhetoric to keep your hand in to keep the conversation going.

I'll tell yu again. I'm attracted to high tone truth tellers not sold out industry PR bot astroturfers so you haven't got a chance of making the cut. Get over it and find someone else to be the object of your unhealthy un-natural attraction and attention.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 23:51:06

So looks like you have no issues with the studies, well even if you do its not like you can point out in a coherent manner the problems you have with the studies, you just keep babbling about "pseudo-science" like a broken record.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-28 23:46:10

Nonsense.

Tell us, specifically, what issues you have with the studies and give us page and paragraph citations so we can all be on the same page.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 23:44:14

Stop trying to twist my words. There are so many issues but you haven't the intellectual integrity to have a fact based respectful conversation about them all.

You studies are industry generated studies designed for PR value ad they are junk pseudo-science.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 23:42:12

There is no one choice because the science is coming faster all the time.

Both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization have declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.

A recent peer review scientific study posted on the Nature website shows that Roundup causes fatty liver disease a concentrations over 430,000 times lower that the contamination allowed in the food supply.

Monsanto’s 1981 glyphosate study in rats by Lankas & Hogan shows that Glyphosate causes malignant LYMPHOMA .. . Glyphosate induced Malignant Lymphoma particularly in the female rats. These malignant lymphomas were found ONLY in the treated animals and found in fourteen different types of tissue. The controls animals did not have any lymphomas.

Monsanto study with 240 rats in their 2-year feeding trial concluded in 1990, which is called "Stout and Ruecker" in the literature. The data from this are revealed in the 1991 EPA memo and in Greim (2015) and clearly show cause for concern which was swept under the rug in the 1991 memo. Three EPA toxicologists also did not concur with the conclusions and did not sign the memo.

There are a lot more bu this should get you started.

Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor that has no safe dose. It causes DNA breaks and irreversible cellular death. It mimics glycine in the body. It causes rapid aging, multiple diseases, and early death.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 23:39:01

You not only are delusional, you seem to get a rise from it. How sad.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 22:20:17

anyone who cares about the health of their family will pay attention to the independent science

You present studies that are independent of science.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 22:17:32

So no issues, you could have just said that

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-28 22:16:31

Your review of studies that were picked because that support your industry agenda while ignoring the studies that don't...

So what's your choice for the definitive study showing harm from glyphosate? Has it been replicated?

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 22:14:03

Nope, but they are still junk pseudo-science and anyone who cares about the health of their family will pay attention to the independent science and not agenda driven industry junk pseudo-science like you post here.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 21:39:26

I can tell when you are hitting on me. You are not my type. I am into truth tellers not industry astroturfers with a disinformation agenda. Go hit on farmerson63. He is more your type and he's an intellectual equal.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 21:35:59

Just saying "pseudo-science" does not make the studies go away.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-28 21:24:12

An even more pathetic response from someone who does not know the meaning of "excuse."

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 21:11:43

Go pound sand, industry boy. These so called studies have been debunked so many times, yet you continue to post this crap.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 21:03:06

What are your issues with the studies, let me know the study and page number and we can discuss.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-28 20:53:35

Do you have an unhealthy attraction to me, so that you need to keep asking me the same lame questions?

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 20:50:22

Your studies were junk pseudo-science garbage.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 20:48:53

Clearly you don't understand the definition of excuse.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 20:41:26

So no issues with the studies then?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-28 20:09:07

Apparently you are totally blind to the facts that Goldfinger posted. How convenient. You ignore the fact that what goldfinger said is the truth. I'll post if for you again, so you can't miss it.

"Your animal feeding study does not prove anything about the safety of long term consumption of glyphosate laden GMO foods in humans.

Your review of studies that were picked because that support your industry agenda while ignoring the studies that don't are junk pseudo-science that is designed by your industry as a PR exercise to support their agenda. Several documents that were obtained under discovery in a lawsuit against Monsanto have exposed the fact that Monsanto uses this ploy to support it's agenda. You can keep spinning the junk science all day, but smart people see right through the your ploy."

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 20:01:21

Science

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-28 19:41:41

So no problems with the studies, just your usual deflection?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-28 19:27:26

Unless their report is balanced with views from other specialties that can be impacted by the consequences of the report the report is self serving one sided PR gold.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 18:27:16

It's quite obvious that you don't know what your talking about again.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 18:24:26

If you believe that plant science and genetics equals biotech agenda, then be it. the report is about plant breeding, hence people with relevant expertise authored it. Nothing surprising.

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-07-28 17:04:23

It's quite obvious you do not know the definition of "excuse."

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 17:03:23

LOL! Is that your excuse for trying to have it both ways. Weak!

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 16:44:41

Sounds legitimate to me. You can't have it both ways.

Incoherent.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 16:42:09

Looks like they are all invested in the biotech agenda that supports their careers. The report doesn't contain any balancing information from public health experts or those who are concerned with human health issues. It is a biased industry PR exercise designed to promote a self serving agenda.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 16:40:08

Here is the list of authors of EASAC report: Professor Volker ter Meulen, German Academy of Sciences LeopoldinaReidunn Aalen,Professor - Section for Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, UiO University of OsloErvin Balázs, Centre for Agricultural Research Hungarian Academy of Science, Department of Applied GenomicsRalph Bock, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant PhysiologyIan Crute, chief scientist, Agriculture & Horticulture Development Board, organisation independent of both commercial industry and of Government)Michel Delseny, Emeritus Research Director at the CNRS,Gene expression and Plant genomicsTorbjörn Fagerström, Professor emeritus Evolutionary ecology, University of Lund, Evert Jacobsen, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University, Prof. Ivan Kreft, Nutrition Institute in Ljubljana,Prof. Birger Lindberg Møller – University of Copenhagen, Plant BiochemistryEwen Mullins, the Agriculture and Food Development Authority of Ireland, Crops Research CentreProf., Enrico Porceddu, Tuscia University, Viterbo , Botany, Molecular BiologyJörg Romeis, Associated senior scientist, Agroscope, University of Bern, Community Ecology, Dr Joachim Schiemann, director of the Institute for Biosafety in Plant Biotechnology (SB) at the Julius Kuehn Institute in GermanyDr.František Sehnal, former director of Biology centre, Czech Academy of Sciences,Dr Hans Söderlund, Director of Global Strategic Alliance, Paras Biopharmaceuticals Finland OyTomasz Twardowski , professor of biology and biotechnology at the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Polish Academy of SciencesNathalie Verbruggen, Université Libre de Bruxelles , Brussels · Faculty of Sciences, Genetics, Physiology, BiotechnologyRoland Wilhelm von Bothmer,Professor of Genetics at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, ,What a bunch of industry cronies! Many of them are retired emeritus professors. I cannot imagine how their future careers depend on "continuing" GM technology development. I dont want to break your bubble but there is no commercial GM Ag-biotech sector in Europe to speak of, so there is hardly any "continuing" GM development. Also I highly doubt that the pensions of these distinguished scientists are paid by comapnies. We have a working pension system in EU. Strangely dr. Sehnal from our country has been frequently attacked in massmedia as an "environmental fundamentalist" because of his expert opinions regarding the management of local National parks. Its always like that. Attack the messenger when you have no arguments.

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-07-28 16:33:48

Sounds legitimate to me. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by Cletus DeBunkerman on 2017-07-28 16:33:07

Are you saying that you guys try and hide your affiliations?

Loaded question.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 16:08:02

Are you saying that you guys try and hide your affiliations?

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-28 16:03:52

Jessu, you guys don't even try to hide your affiliations.

Unsubstantiated.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 16:02:15

Paid bloggers are a fact.

Unsubstantiated.

Posted by Biron_1 on 2017-07-28 16:01:19

And what do you do for a living?

Posted by Anne Temple on 2017-07-28 15:49:50

Yes. Yes you are...

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-28 14:12:57

It doesn't take much brain power to deal with trolls like you. You're a dime a dozen.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-28 14:11:58

Absolutely brain dead.

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-28 12:50:29

Prove me wrong.Give us one confirmed instance.You and I both know there have been Zero.You say I am incorrect over and over yet make absolutely no attempt to prove me wrong.You are the Shill of all Shills.

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-28 12:47:57

and here is another operative

Posted by grinninglibber on 2017-07-28 11:32:27

Well known Big GMO operative.

Posted by grinninglibber on 2017-07-28 11:31:25

Nobody said human studies were needed to prove safety. We need to see for Independent chronic toxicity studies, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides.

Your animal feeding study does not prove anything about the safety of long term consumption of glyphosate laden GMO foods in humans.

You review of studies that were picked because that support your industry agenda while ignoring the studies that don't are junk pseudo-science that is designed by your industry as a PR exercise to support their agenda. Several documents that were obtained under discovery in a lawsuit against Monsanto have exposed the fact that Monsanto uses this ploy to support it's agenda. You can keep spinning the junk science all day, but smart people see right through the your ploy.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-28 10:46:46

GFU

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-28 10:38:43

That's rubbish and you know it.

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-28 10:27:30

The author: "The Canadian approach therefore, by just asking what the crop is supposed to do, effectively places outside of regulation most of the standard considerations of risk and hazard. Once upon a time, risk assessment was supposed to be about what a product is not supposed to do."This is a publicly available list of what was submitted to Canadian Food Inspection Agency as part of their approval process.

"Summary of the Submission PackageUpdated scientific information may be added to this submission by the developer at a later date, or CFIA and/or Health Canada may request further information from the developer.

Description of the host plant

The Biology of Brassica napus L. (Canola/Rapeseed) Biology Document BIO1994-09A Companion document to Directive 94-08 (Dir94-08) Assessment Criterial for Determining Environmental Safety of Plants with Novel TraitsDescription of the ModificationThe PNT was developed through recombinant DNA technology. In order to assess the modification process the following has been submitted:

Transformation methodDescription of vector, detailed vector map, gene constructsNature and source of the carrier DNADescription of the genetic material delivered to the plantSummary of all genetic compoundsDescription of the herbicide tolerance gene – bar gene; male sterility gene – barnase gene; restoration of fertility gene – barstar gene.Description of the promoters and terminatorsPortion and size of the inserted sequencesLocation, order and orientation in the vectorsSource of the modified bar gene (donor organism – Streptomyces hygroscopicus); barnase and barstar genes (donor organism – Bacillus amyloliquefaciens)Inheritance and Stability of the Introduced TraitIn order to assess the inheritance and stability of the genetic modification the following has been submitted:

Analysis of stability of insert over multiple generations and in different genetic backgroundsExplanation of hybrid technology using the Male Sterile (MS) plant and the fertility restorer plant (RF) plantMendelian segregation of the novel plantDescription of the Novel TraitsIn order to characterize the DNA inserted in the plant, the following has been submitted:

Function of the modified herbicide tolerance gene in the plantInformation for all coding areasInformation on plant promoters: Southern analysis of the modified barnase, barstar, and bar coding regions and their promotersDNA analysis for introns, terminators and enhancers of plant expressible cassettesCharacterization of expressed modified Barnase, Barstar and modified Pat/bar proteins in canola plant tissue

Toxicity/Allergenicity of the Novel Gene ProductsIn order to assess toxicity and allergenicity of the novel gene products on nontarget species, humans and animals the following has been submitted:

Comparison of the complete amino acid sequences of the modified Barnase, Barstar and Pat/bar proteins to known allergens and toxinsDigestive fate in vitro studiesAcute oral toxicity test of modified Barnase, Barstar and Pat/bar proteins with miceNutritional Evaluation of the Modified Plant

In order to assess nutritional aspects of the modified plant the following has been submitted:

The nutritional composition of the novel plant (MS11) and MS11xRF3 have been compared to unmodified canola. The following have been considered:Dietary exposureProximate composition (crude protein, crude fat, moisture, carbohydrates, ash and fibre)Composition of amino acids, fatty acids, minerals, and vitaminsAnti-nutrients for canola (glucosinolates, phytic acid, sinapine, tannins)A broiler chicken feeding study was submittedMore information about the approval of RF3 is available in the following decision document: DD1996-17: Determination of Environmental Safety of Plant Genetic Systems Inc.'s (PGS) Novel Hybridization System for Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.).

Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of the Modified PlantIn order to assess the environmental impact of the novel plant, the following were assessed:

Potential to become a weed, gene flow, feeding studies, allergenicity studies, non-target organism impact. Does the author still contend that CFIA checks to see if the trait does only what it is supposed to do? This list of submissions, which is available online, seems to have escaped whatever checking Latham did of what he wrote and published.

Posted by Verna Lang on 2017-07-28 10:25:48

Moderator, please ban the screen name Goldfinger.The name belongs to Ted Minor who uses multiple screen names to try fool you and your readers.https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

I wrote what I mean. Don't try and twist my words. It only prove your one dishonest dude who is clueless about the actual facts.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 23:25:26

Told you that you cared.

Don't you mean small P-value? or are you talking about the R-squared value? You are so confused today.

"Also remember that all these things are voluntary and based on informed consent"

You still need to make sure you are blaming the correct thing.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 23:11:06

Smart scientists pay attention to correlations when the P values are as high as they are here. Agenda driven industry scientists try and spin them away.

Show us the data and the correlations for organic foo, plane travel, car travel, seat belts, wifi, cell phones, and inactivity, etc etc etc. Also remember that all these things are voluntary and based on informed consent which is not the case with cancer causing glyphosate laden GMOs which have been approved without any safety testing and intentional hidden from food buyers in the North American food supply.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 23:03:37

You keep claiming to have thousands of studies, but you can't post ONE study that shows long term consumption of GMOs is safe for humans. I believe science not claims. Data not authority.

None of the GMOs, of which over 96% grown today contain cancer causing glyphosate residues that can not be washed off, have undergone safety testing.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 22:56:56

You care, the thing is Goldfinger correlation studies don't prove anything and the fact that studies conducted on GMO and glyphosate have consistently shown no harm from either indicate you are looking in the wrong place for the cause of increased disease. Maybe organic food is the cause, or plane travel, car travel, seat belts, wifi, cell phones, inactivity, etc etc etc.

If you don't care what I think you will not respond.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 22:50:30

Thousands of studies have shown no harm from GMO crops, that is why the are generally recognised as safe, but if someone introduces a gene for a novel protein into a plant then more extensive safety testing may be required, this of course is determined on a case by case basis. If a crop carries a gene for a bio-pesticide then the developer needs to do safety testing to verify that it is safe.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 22:46:13

You say that about all the science that conflicts with your industry agenda. Nobody cares what you think.

No. I am saying they have all been approved with no safety studies. That is a fact. You are a liar. Don't try and twist my words, troll.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 22:11:48

You are blind to the truth

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 22:10:04

So what you are saying is you have not taken the time to read up on the regulation process.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 22:09:19

There is no safety record.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 22:03:41

The truth doesn't need to be clever.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 21:59:25

No, they have all been approved with no safety studies. That is a fact. You are a liar.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 21:55:22

That sure took alot of brain power to come up with that scientific, in depth response.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 21:49:24

"100% food safety?" For what exactly? You're the one making false claims, liar.

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-27 21:49:04

Such a clever response Rob, said no one ever.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 21:42:51

A 100% food safety record in 20 years is pretty impressive, wouldn't you agree?It has been tested.....more than any food in the history of science. Quit making false claims.

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-27 21:05:03

You make the claims without any real wold or scientific proof.LOLPure Comedy!I challenge you.Share a real world confirmed illness or death.How about a peer reviewed study that concluded GMO's are dangerous to eat.Knocking on pats noggin....hello....Is anyone home?

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-27 21:03:44

Genetically engineering our food with toxins and DNA altering the natural state of its organism through foreign gene expression etc., is not food. It's phood and it should be tested. How can you sit there and tell me it's been proven safe after 20 years and now you tell me it's against the law?! You're not only a liar but a hypocrite.

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-27 19:50:36

It does!

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-27 19:50:28

There you go again with your scare crow...funny.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-27 19:49:17

Yep nothing, except a 20 year perfect safety record in humans and animals and thousands of studies showing no harm from GMO's,

Sucks to be me :(

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 19:47:03

aww,I'm sorry you have nothing!

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-27 19:43:24

It is against the law.As you notice, this has never been done on any food.

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-27 19:41:47

That sure took alot of brain power to come up with that scientific, in depth response.

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-27 19:41:11

20+ years of a PERFECT % food safety record...omg that is so funny,I can't even begin to explain away all the food issues in all the younger generation I work with. Pharmer,just a heads up,safety studies does not = health studies! I cannot stop laughing at you!

There are no "studys here that shows long term consumption" of any food is safe for humans, Ted.But you already know that because I have told you that several hundred times.Knocking on Ted's noggin....is anyone home?

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-27 19:36:37

I actually have quite a lot of relevant education and experience on the issue, so no you cannot dismiss all my comment like that.

"The only thing you are supporting is a deregulated free pass for the bio-tech agrichemical companies"

You already tried this straw-man, it did not work.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 19:35:45

No.You claimed no safety issue..I have lots more,btw.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-27 19:22:54

I never worry, but you might be well served to start worrying about the state of your soul.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 19:22:48

It's JONATHAN,btw..."there are people who have done as much or more research than Johnathan and formed an opinion that differs from his." However you are not one of those people,so henceforth your comments here are useless. The only thing you are supporting is a deregulated free pass for the bio-tech agrichemical companies.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-27 19:20:54

Nothing you can say here will make your opinions on GMO regulation correct.

Johnathan is an independent scientist who works for the benefit of human and planetary health.. You are a anonymous industry troll who is not qualified to make the coffee much less discuss biotech regulation in an unbiased way.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 19:20:51

Wow, you are really grasping at straws now.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 19:16:25

There is no 20 year safety record. We have already schooled you on those facts

No one is asking to prove a negative. The proof of safety is required in many places. Cancer causing glyphosate laden GMOs should not be the exception.

Maybe you can't come up with one study that shows safety.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 19:13:38

LOl,you're so cute,like a bug. Twenty +years of use and there are plenty plenty of concerns about safety...what's the math problem? Perhaps you need to go back a bit to 1989,L-tryptophan was all the rage.Flavr Savr tomatoes and don't forget the GMO corn that wasn't suppose to be in those tortillas!

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-27 19:07:13

Good for you, I don't care how much research Johnathan has done, it doesn't make his opinions on GMO regulation correct, there are people who have done as much or more research than Johnathan and formed an opinion that differs from his. So you appeal to authority falls apart, doesn't it?

How have I undermined the regulatory process, I am merely supporting progress in this area, but nice straw-man attempt.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 19:06:40

There are no safety studies that show long term human consumption of genetically engineered food to be 100% safe. Post it here or go pound salt.

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-27 19:04:00

Hey,look at that...You research,I research,Goldfinger,Rob,Mark,StopGMO do research as well,however the fact remains that Jonathan has done the most,and your insipient denial of the undermining of the regulatory processes governing genetic engineering just proves that you a (paid?) finger puppet for the industry.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-27 18:34:20

Unless you can post one study showing long term consumption of GMO's is harmful to humans you cannot honestly tell me they are harmful.

Its easier to prove a positive than a negative Goldfinger, of course a 20 year perfect safety record is going to be hard for you to argue against.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 18:29:40

No job hey, don't worry things will pick up.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 18:21:37

Google some studies Pat, 20 years of use and no safety issues, do the math.

Also, while we are correcting each others spelling, it should be "thousands" not thousand.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 18:21:06

I don't post any personal information about my self to know dodgy trolls with a reputation for stalking and hacking anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 18:13:32

Horse$#!T...There may be thousand of studies,but that doesn't matter if you can't even cite one example. Perfect safety record?? Lol...how many GE crops have been pulled due to problems? Who's irrational here? I would call you delusional.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-27 18:11:57

You are not going to tell me what you do for work?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 18:11:17

You are not fooling anyone, "EFFNNELL".

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 18:07:54

Maybe that comes from the constant piecing of the truth that requires a lot of seams.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 18:05:42

Guess not, well spotted.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 18:04:55

Unless you can post ONE study that shows long term consumption of GMOs is safe for humans you can not honestly tell me they are safe.

There is considerable evidence that they are not safe, but because they are purposely hidden in food supply epidemiologists are unable to trace them back from cases of death attributed to a number of serious medical conditions likely triggered by glyphosate laden GMOs..

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 18:03:32

Seams...again? I thought you learned something last night,guess not.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-27 18:02:09

This is a forum, I am commenting, what do you do for a living Goldfinger? surely you don't make a living "truth telling"?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 17:50:21

A political stunt proves GMOs harmful? Not a lot of logic going on in your head is there?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 17:48:14

Your not doing research here. You are trolling.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 17:44:29

Nobody cares what you believe or don't believe it has no effect on reality.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 17:43:29

No, EFFNNELL, There are no study that show long term consumption of GMOs and/or glyphosate resides is safe for human.

The nations largest health care organization sent a newsletter to their patients. In that newsletter was an article by one of their nutritionists who explained GMOs and then told the patients to avoid them so as to not degrade their health. The health care organization had no "official" policy on GMOs because of the politics, but it cared enough about the concerns of its medical staff, its patients, and its bottom line to send out the warning.

There have been no long term independent studies of the health effects of GMOs on human health. Many health care organizations are recognizing that severe unexplained symptoms that are being reported by their patients get better when GMOs are removed from their diet.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 17:42:33

Research is what I do.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 17:42:31

I don't believe he has read the article because he has not said one thing about the topics the author brought up, seams Rob and a few others here just read the title.

"You are targeting him with harassment"

A little thin skinned on Rob's behalf are we? The name callers here are you and Rob, seams very immature from you given you look around 70 years old.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 17:41:45

This correlation nonsense again hey? Well since I was happy with my reply to StopGMO I will just copy and paste it:

So you blame GMO crops when there is over 4000 studies showing that they cause no harm? not very clever is it? what else has increased in use or been introduced recently that correlates with disease increases? Fast food and processed food consumption, excessive cleanliness, cell phones, internet, organic food, vegetable oil, the pill, stress, tv, time spent sitting. peoples age. car travel, plane travel, number of Jim Carey movies and probably a whole bunch of other things.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 17:38:41

Hey EFFNNELL what do you do for a living? something to do with the the biotech chemical industry troll squad?

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 17:38:13

How do you know if he has read the article or not? You are targeting him with harassment. That is what trolls do.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 17:36:06

No, EFFNNELL, There are no study that show long term consumption of GMOs and/or glyphosate resides is safe for human.

There is no 20 year safety record. Since GMOs were introduced without any safety testing serious medical issues like Non Hodgkin's lymphoma, bile duct cancer, Kidney and renal pelvic cancer, urinary bladder cancer, thyroid cancer, not only that but also hypertension, stroke, obesity, diabetes, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, intestinal infection, autism, Alzheimer's , and Parkinson's. All of these have increased dramatically since cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs were introduced and purposely hidden from us in the food supply.

The cancers related to transgenic organisms and glyphosate mainly increase cancers that were far more rare. Cancer of thyroid, pancreas, liver, blader, stomach and esophagus are all up since introduction of transgenics and rise in glyphosate application by 17 fold.

It looks like you were trolling to me. Now I'll wait for your ego response.

Posted by Goldfinger on 2017-07-27 17:27:57

You haven't even read the article.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 17:09:02

There are thousands of GMO safety studies, there are multi-generational animal feeding studies showing no safety issues, combined with a perfect safety record for 20 years.

If you are not convinced of safety with the incredible amount of evidence that currently exists you never will be, therefore you are irrational. Not a good thing to be.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 17:08:03

Yes, I gave my response. You can read it or not, I don't care either way.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 17:03:37

Hey Rob what do you do for a living? something to do with the organic industry?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 17:02:11

Absolute gibberish from a well known pro-industry, corporate meat puppet. Zero credibility, and even less integrity.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-27 14:33:06

I don't waste my time and energy debating with propaganda spewing corporate meat puppets like yourself.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-27 14:31:45

Robert Wager is another pro-GMO corporate meat puppet who trolls social media articles on GMOs 24/7 in order to promote and defend the industry. Masquerading as a pro-science, industry spokesperson, he spreads misinformation, industry pseudoscience, and propaganda.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-27 14:30:41

EffNNELL is a pro-agrochemical. biotech industry troll. You can find this corporate meat puppet trolling social media articles on GMOs 24/7 in order to promote and defend the industry. He spreads pseudoscience and misinformation and has been doing so for years. In fact, his presence is so ubiquitous I can only assume this is his full time job.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-27 14:28:57

Coming from a gas-lighting, propaganda-spewing, agrochemical industry spokesperson, your comment is meaningless. You have zero credibility.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-27 14:26:10

You claim of hypocrisy is targeted harassment.

It is not hypocritical to want an organism that was created in a lab using genes from unrelated organisms that would not combine in nature to be safety tested before they are released to the public and purposely hidden from food buyers in the food supply.

There is no proven safety and the safety studies have not been done to prove safety.

Posted by Peaceful Warrior on 2017-07-27 14:21:11

GMOs are not just any food.

The conventional food we eat has been tested by evolutionary forces for thousands of years and have been consumed for millenniums with out harm to humans.

GMOs are cobbled together in a lab from the genes of unrelated organisms and they have not been through evolutionary pressure and they are released to the environment with out any safety testing.

You argument is false equivalency.

Posted by Peaceful Warrior on 2017-07-27 14:18:32

Nobody has asked for human trials. We need to see some Independent chronic toxicity studies, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides. Until then it is a lie to say GMOs are safe for long term human consumption.

Posted by Peaceful Warrior on 2017-07-27 14:18:00

Do you take issue with the facts SG posted or are you trolling?

Posted by Peaceful Warrior on 2017-07-27 14:15:38

If your claim is true it should be easy for you to post ONE study here that shows long term consumption of glyphosate laden GMOs is safe for humans. You always claim to have science. Now prove your claim by post that one study here, now. I'll wait.

Posted by Peaceful Warrior on 2017-07-27 14:14:41

A good shrink might be able to help with your problem.

Posted by Peaceful Warrior on 2017-07-27 14:10:01

LOL, your hypocrocy is very entertaining.Can you give one confirmed example of transgenic engineering resulting in anything dangerous to humans?Of course you can't.You are still screaming bloody murder about "what if's" after 20 years of proven safety.You lack of brain power is always entertaining.

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-27 12:35:36

More BS! Save it.

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-27 11:44:42

"Every other foods" is safe. Transgenic, genetic engineering is completely different from what they've been doing for the past 20+ years ago. Your statement and so called studies with huge conflict of interests and bias means nothing, all lies. Keep trolling. Nobody cares, nobody is listening to your insanity and love for this corruption. Keep laughing, you're the joke!

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-27 11:42:43

There are no long term studies on humans for any food.Yet you are fine eating every other food?Knocking on Stops noggin....is anyone home?Over 4,000 peer reviewed safety studies.7 years of safety studies BEFORE the product could be approved for public use.20+ years of a PERFECT 100% food safety record.Yet you hippy wackos go on and on like the sky is falling.I cannot stop laughing!!!

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-27 07:04:14

You sure implied human trials, but if you didn't then what studies do you want? long term and multi generational animal feeding studies have been conducted and they showed no harm from GMO crops. Plus all the anecdotal evidence of animals and people consuming GMO products without any harm for 20 years. What more can you ask for?

" look around and acknowledge how many diseases have skyrocketed today "

So you blame GMO crops when there is over 2000 studies showing that they cause no harm? not very clever is it? what else has increased in use or been introduced recently that correlates with disease increases? Fast food and processed food consumption, excessive cleanliness, cell phones, internet, organic food, vegetable oil, the pill, stress, tv, time spent sitting. peoples age. car travel, plane travel, number of Jim Carey movies and probably a whole bunch of other things.

Yet you with all the wisdom you can muster choose a plant breeding method to place all blame on, who is the idiot?

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 05:42:09

I did not say "conducted on humans", although it is conducted on humans everyday and like I've mentioned before, look around and acknowledge how many diseases have skyrocketed today more thank ever before among, babies, children and adults. 2x's the idiot!

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-27 00:52:23

What you appear to be asking for is a long term feeding study conducted on humans, and you call me the idiot.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-27 00:22:06

Is that all you've got? I knew you couldn't prove anything except for the fact that you're an idiot!

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-27 00:16:26

The joke is on you though so I'll laugh too!

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-27 00:00:32

"look around and acknowledge how many diseases have skyrocketed today, more than ever among, babies, children and adults"

This from an anti vaxer, LOL

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 23:59:52

Safety tested, how? Prove it! There has never been any studies for long term human consumption. If you think there is one, please present that study now otherwise, stop talking nonsense. The only actual "testing" going on is now, as we're being force fed frankenfoods in our food supply. Maybe you should stop and look around and acknowledge how many diseases have skyrocketed today, more than ever among, babies, children and adults.

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-26 23:57:39

Pat does this mean you do not believe that GMO regulations need to move with the times and advance with the advancing technology they are meant to regulate.

So in your mind GMO regulation is perfect as is? If not give us your thoughts, I am yet to see any of you anti-GMO types actually discuss the subject brought up in the article. From the comments I have read it seams most people here simply read the title. Prove me wrong Pat.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 23:08:19

LOLI cannot stop laughing!!!

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-26 21:29:16

LOL Pure Comedy!!!Do you still sleep with the light on?

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-26 21:27:06

GMO foods have been safety tested more than any food in the history of science.There will never be enough safety studies for you wacko hippies.

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-26 21:24:25

Then prove it.

Posted by FarmersSon63 on 2017-07-26 21:23:19

Please cite the studies that show that long term exposure to these new GMOs by humans is safe.

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 20:47:25

Thanks for proving my point.

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 20:45:36

So the panel is made up of those who work in the "field". What field is that? Or should I say "whose"field? "The most qualified people to conduct the review of gene-editing are those who work in the field, and were in fact, on the panel." Can you say conflict of interest?? Of course NAS wouldn't find any health effects,they're not looking for any.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 19:57:41

The point I have been making is that gene-edited products have not been shown to cause any health effects in domestic animals or humans, which was supported by the NAS quote I included. You had two major points, first that glyphosate is bad, which is irrelevant to that discussion, and second, that the NAS panel had conflicts of interest. In my opinion, experts in gene-editing are those who have been employed in relevant fields. You and others have claimed that this makes them all unqualified to judge the safety of gene-edited crops. I believe the opposite. The most qualified people to conduct the review of gene-editing are those who work in the field, and were in fact, on the panel.

Posted by Robert Howd on 2017-07-26 19:44:07

Better.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 19:31:03

No $#!T,, how's that?

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 19:28:45

hilarious

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 19:26:36

You have no right to tell anyone to "buzz off"

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 19:22:36

You are trolling when you continue to engage when you have been told to buzz off. Ether your social skills are very bad or you are a troll.

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 19:18:32

You have no right to say who can and who can't post on this forum.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 19:14:36

Wrong, I support regulation, but I believe there is room for improvement.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 19:10:26

Thanks Pat, I actually learned something from you, quite surprising.

Also, when starting a sentence the first letter should be an uppercase.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 19:06:51

the word is seem.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 19:02:49

Buzz off, industry guy.

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 18:48:39

I did read the article..you losers are trying to get away with deregulating every regulation you can...if industry had its way with regulations,there wouldn't be any regulations and you industry trolls would be paid off handsomely, due to the profiteers who have paid the PR industry firms who hire the likes of you.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 18:48:04

You seam to care, you keep responding to all my posts.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 18:42:55

I did ,...you are a joke

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 18:38:10

So you say. Nobody cares what you think.

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 18:36:57

So you say ... delusion rules!

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 18:34:27

Clearly that was a joke. Hopefully even you could comprehend that.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 18:33:09

Because if you actually read the article with an open mind you would see that his arguments against data transportibility, trait-based GMO regulation and tiered risk assessment are flawed.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 18:32:16

pfft

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 18:28:03

Who has a PHD in GMO regulation? lol..Jonathan has more experience and knowledge in genetic engineering than you,so why shouldn't we listen to him?

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 18:27:07

"Get over yourself."

Impossible, I am so magnificent.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 18:22:04

Is his PHD in GMO regulation? I doubt it, and its his position on GMO regulation that I disagree with. Do you comprehend?

"we should believe you,a cartoon character.LMAO"

This coming from what appears to be a snowman. LMAO.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 18:21:05

Nobody cares what you think. Get over yourself.

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 18:18:38

"I agree with every word the author said"

Of course you do, you agree with everything even remotely anti-GMO/industry, you are nothing but a well trained yes-man. But if you used a little critical thinking you would see how weak the authors arguments are on these positions, his whole argument boils down to this: industry and regulators are talking with each about modernising GMO regulation and that some how means that biotech industry is taking over regulation. Its an extremely weak argument and reeks of the authors bias against ag-biotech.

Why shouldn't regulation advance? Knowledge is increasing all the time, technology is advancing all the time, why shouldn't the way GMO technology is regulated reflect this ?

I don't care what Rob chooses to post, it is he who is making him self look stupid, I asked if that is the only argument he had, turns out it was. I don't understand why he even bothers posting if that is all he has, but its an open forum and anyone can post whatever they want regardless of how pathetic it make them look. Case in point, your very next reply.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-26 18:11:25

No,but they have access to every article posted on the internet so they can comment and spread their paid industry propaganda,just like you do,Robbie.

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 18:08:38

Wow...really?? I'm thinking you suffer from severe reading comprehension. But the best part is your accusation against Jonathan Latham.Required knowledge? from a PHD,and we should believe you,a cartoon character.LMAO

Posted by patzagame on 2017-07-26 18:02:56

The NAS report was not about the new technology ether. Do you take issue with the facts I posted, Robert?

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 17:58:06

The article we're commenting on is about regulation of new gene-edited products; it's not about glyphosate. The newer products in question are NOT being engineered for glyphosate resistance.

Posted by Robert Howd on 2017-07-26 17:53:53

What Howd doesn't tell you is that the NAS has a huge conflict of interest with the biotech chemical industry. The NAS complete ignored the fact that over 96% of GMOs grown today were designed to be cultivated with cancer causing Roundup/glyphosate. This poison must be taken up by the plant to work and it can not be washed off. The result is that every bite of food made from this toxic GMO crop carries and bonus dose of cancer causing glyphosate with every bite.

National Academy is taking funding from biotechnology firms and using “pro-GMO scientists” to write its reports.

Jose Farck-Zepeda - International Food Policy Research Institute - Works for organization that supports GMOs; collaborates with industry supporters on research advocating use of GMOs in Africa

Kevin Pixley - International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center - Research collaborator with Syngenta Foundation works for organization that supports and develops GMOs

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 17:41:16

What Wager doesn't say is that this report was written by a bunch of people who's careers depend on the continuing development of GM technology and it represents the views of the authors and not the position of the European Academies Science. It is a one side promotional piece that ignored all the issues like long term human safety and other public health issues.

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 17:32:39

I agree with every word the author said. He was right on every point. Not only that, he is an independent scientist who works for the benefit of humanity and not the biotech chemical industry agenda like you, Wager, Moravec, and Howd who are seen spinning propaganda and junk pseudo-science ideology on threads about biotechnology and chemical agriculture on a daily basis.

Why do you care what Rob chooses to post. You sound like like a whiny little adolescent who thinks he knows much more than he really does. Give us a break and give it up.

Posted by E. Sandwich on 2017-07-26 17:28:15

So, your assertion that industry is planting individuals all across govt regulatory agencies and are conspiring to get products approved that have shown no scientific reason why they wouldn't get approved anyway... right? Well, that's called a conspiracy. And since you've provided no evidence that this is happening, it's a conspiracy theory.

Posted by Jason on 2017-07-26 13:14:46

Do you have any evidence that current or future GM crops contain "products" that do not occur in nature?

Posted by Tomas Moravec on 2017-07-26 06:45:50

And of course we should recall the 2016 report from the National Academy of Sciences, titled "Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects." This included the summary paragraph, "There have been claims that GE crops have had adverse effects on human health. Many reviews have indicated that foods from GE crops are as safe as foods from non-GE crops, but the committee reexamined the original studies of this subject. The design and analysis of many animal-feeding studies were not optimal, but the large number of experimental studies provided reasonable evidence that animals were not harmed by eating food derived from GE crops. Additionally, long-term data on livestock health before and after the introduction of GE crops showed no adverse effects associated with GE crops. The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops."

Posted by Robert Howd on 2017-07-25 23:36:08

Is that your only argument Rob? Its all I ever see you write, did any of you anti-GMO types actually read the article, I have not seen even one of you talk about the topics the author brought up.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-25 22:32:41

I am not confident that you even read the article based on your comment, if you did you would see that the title of the article does not match the content. Talks about data transportibility, trait-based GMO regulation and tiered risk assessment hardly equate to the biotech industry taking over GMO regulation from the inside and the authors weak arguments against these topics is a sure sign the author lacks the required knowledge to write properly about these things.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-25 22:30:01

I have seen this article posted elsewhere and as I have previously stated in another thread the author appears to lack a basic understanding about these GMO regulation topics. Certain types of data produced in one country can be valid in another country especially when using confined field trials from a country that grows GMO's to meet data requirements in countries that only import GMO's see:

https://www(dot)ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov/pmc/articles/PMC4639567/

The authors argument against tiered risk assessment is heavily flawed, the pharmaceutical testing the author is talking about starts with a model organism and the data produced is used in infer safety to humans, this is because human trials cannot begin without at least some indication of safety. When testing the safety of GMO's on bees scientists can just start with the bee.

Posted by EFFNNELL on 2017-07-25 22:09:59

Do these "hundreds" have secret decoder rings to help them stay secret?

Posted by RobertWager on 2017-07-25 20:04:07

I wonder why the European Academies Science Advisory council 2013 report "Planting the Future" said this:

"There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health andthe environment than any other technology used in plant breeding…There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy… It is vital that sustainable agricultural production and food securityharnesses the potential of biotechnology in all its facets."

Perhaps the author can explain it to us?

Posted by RobertWager on 2017-07-25 19:59:20

"Nothing at all?" Wake the ^%$# up!

Posted by StopGMO on 2017-07-25 17:25:49

If any actual adverse health effects of consumption of genetically edited products in humans or animals were documented by those who question the use of these techniques in modern agriculture, it would provide some justification for the continued antagonism by the anti-GMO folks. But so far, nothing at all. Of course this won't stop their antagonistic attacks and name-calling. No facts are no problem for true believers.

Posted by Robert Howd on 2017-07-25 17:11:49

The biotech industry was corrupt from its very inception, and continues to corrupt and collude with government and regulators. So-called regulators are effectively captured by industry and simply rubber stamp any and all biotech products industry puts forth. Zero credible testing, zero scientific assessment for safety, zero regulation.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-25 15:38:35

More antiscience gibberish from another industry meat puppet...

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-25 15:36:30

Said the well known pro-GMO industry propagandist and spokesperson...

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-25 15:35:49

Exactly so, Mark. The agrochemical/ biotech industry has been corrupt since its inception; and since its inception it has corrupted and colluded with government and regulators to the point that the FDA, USDA, and EPA are essentially branches of the biotech industry. Complete and total capture of regulators by industry.

Known biotech industry spokespeople and propagandists (like Robert, below) spend countless hours trolling social media articles like this one in order to defend and promote industry. These pathetic corporate meat puppets have zero credibility and even less integrity. Their intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds as they adopt Trumps particular penchant for 'alternative facts' and antiscience gibberish.

Posted by Rob Bright on 2017-07-25 15:35:11

Jessu, you guys don't even try to hide your affiliations. You should have Bayer-Monsanto patches sewn onto your jackets. You have a fake account that comments on exactly the same articles as Robert. Hell, you probably ARE Robert.

Posted by Mark Smith on 2017-07-25 14:10:58

This is not conspiracy. Learn the difference.

Conspiracy take disparate information to draw unproven conclusions. Monsanto have HUNDREDS of "ex" employees working at high levels of the FDA. Why would HUNDREDS of highly paid employees take lower paying jobs, and then set up fastlanes for Monsanto in their processes. Don't you ever watch 60 Minutes.

No this is correlation. Paid bloggers are a fact. The Heritage Foundation,The Genetic Literacy Group to mention two of dozens that create false information and fake studies that each use to validate each other. No, you are a fake. A liar. A paid shill, as you say.

Posted by Mark Smith on 2017-07-25 14:09:57

Robert is correct. we have learned so much more about how to test for safety and should rely on that history and learnings. One example is protein degradation in the gut (happens quickly) and proteins that are not digested quickly down to amino acids do not move forward into products. once they are amino acids, they are just food for the body that could have come from any other plant protein. Let's not keep making it so only the largest multinationals can afford to make GM products which benefit everyone. It is good that voices of reason are being heard. Every country should not have a completely different testing agenda developed in a vacuum but should rely on the good thinking undergone by other countries.

Posted by GarSan on 2017-07-25 13:38:15

Ah, yes. Everything you don't like must be a conspiracy, and everybody who disagrees with you must be a paid shill. Sad.

Posted by Robert Howd on 2017-07-25 13:27:47

....and the GM industry shows up and makes their desires known.

NO Robert. As gene manipulation comes to be used more and more, they should be under a GREAT deal more scrutiny. Considering that the products they put out do not occur in nature, they probably are not made to be digested or taken up by our systems. As a consequence we should expect MORE inflammation and more disease from these irritations. Cancer is rampant. Steritilty is on the rise, as predicted. Renal failure and liver damage is more prevalent, as predicted. Studies are NOT being done, and reports are still being falsified. No Robert, no matter how much you are paid, no matter how much you are told what we the People "should' be doing for you and your industry, we should be making it as difficult as we do for pharmaceuticals , for the same reasons. Safety. SAFETY, SAFETY.

Posted by Mark Smith on 2017-07-25 11:18:20

As more and more experience accumulates on products derived using gene editing techniques, and as those techniques become better understood and more precise, shouldn't we expect fewer tests to be necessary on the new products? If adverse effects were documented on domestic animals or humans consuming the products, that could change, but so far, nothing has been found in over 20 years of use.

Posted by Robert Howd on 2017-07-25 11:14:32

This will not go unanswered by the GM AstroTurf crew. I fully expect denial and obfuscation. Facts are facts. The FDA and teh USDA are essentially run by Monsanto employees masquerading as government employees. if there was an audit, you'd see these people being double paid every month. One check from teh government and one check from teh GM industry to grease the wheels and grind down anyone that wants to show them in a negative light.

Posted by Mark Smith on 2017-07-25 11:14:29

About this Blog

This blog’s mission is to make the issues that rural America is grappling with part of national discourse. more